Merck intentionally misled the public and the medical community

[Tc]

Tempers Flare as Vioxx Cases Come to Trial

April 26, 2005 Giant drugmaker Merck & Co. has vowed to fight
every one of the thousands of personal injury cases filed
against it after the Vioxx withdrawal, starting with the case
of Brad Rogers, 42, an ambulance dispatcher in Alabama.

Merck came out swinging, its lawyers calling Rogers' widow,
Cheryl, 33, a liar. At a pre-trial deposition, she presented
packages of Vioxx that she said her husband had used just
before his death from a heart attack.

But Merck's lawyers said the packages in question left the
Merck factory six months after Rogers died. Rogers' lawyers
shot back that it was an unintentional error and then filed a
motion seeking sanctions against Merck for violating a
protective order and disclosing personal and confidential
information about Mrs. Rogers and her husband.

In addition, the motion cites Merck being in violation of
the provisions of the federal health privacy act, HIPAA,
by disclosing personal medical information pertaining to
Brad Rogers.

Vioxx was withdrawn from the market last September after
studies suggested it doubled the risk of heart attack and
stroke in those who took the drug for more than 18 months.

Merck has set aside $675 million to fight the roughly 2,500
cases that have been filed. Its defense strategy, as
illustrated in the Rogers case, is to question whether Vioxx
was actually to blame for the deaths and illnesses claimed by
the plaintiffs, or whether other factors, including lifestyle,
heredity, diet and smoking may have been significant.

Rogers collapsed and died shortly after finishing a night
shift. He was overweight and had high blood pressure and high
cholesterol, which is why his lawyers say he shouldn't have
been taking Vioxx.

Attorney Jere Beasley, representing Mrs. Rogers, asked that
since Merck allegedly violated the protective order by
releasing information about the Rogers couple to the press,
the court vacate its protective order as it relates to
documents produced by Merck. He is asking the court to allow
for public disclosure by plaintiffs' attorneys of all Merck
documents.

"Releasing Merck's documents would serve the public interest
by exposing its wrongful conduct over the years," Beasley
said. "Clinical tests have proven Vioxx is and was a dangerous
drug. It has killed literally thousands of unsuspecting
victims who trusted the company and who had no idea that Vioxx
caused heart attacks and strokes."

During the Advantage trial in 2000, eight people taking Vioxx
suffered heart attacks or sudden cardiac death, compared with
just one taking naproxen, according to data released by the
FDA earlier this year, Beasley said.

The difference was statistically significant, but Merck never
disclosed the data that way. In fact, according to previously
undisclosed Merck records, including email messages between
top Merck officials, it appears that Merck went out of its way
to hide these facts, Beasley said in a news release.

In 2000, amid rising concerns that its painkiller Vioxx posed
heart risks, Merck overruled one of its own scientists after
he suggested that a patient in a clinical trial had probably
died of a heart attack, he said.

"Merck intentionally misled the public and the medical
community by withholding information relating to known dangers
associated with taking Vioxx," Beasley says.

Merck argues that Mrs. Rogers' credibility has been damaged
and moved for a dismissal of the case.

--

TC

[Tc]

here is the link to the story:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/vioxx_trial_01.html

TC

TC wrote:
> Tempers Flare as Vioxx Cases Come to Trial
>
> April 26, 2005 Giant drugmaker Merck & Co. has vowed to
> fight every one of the thousands of personal injury cases
> filed against it after the Vioxx withdrawal, starting with
> the case of Brad Rogers, 42, an ambulance dispatcher in
> Alabama.
>
> Merck came out swinging, its lawyers calling Rogers'
> widow, Cheryl,
33,
> a liar. At a pre-trial deposition, she presented packages
> of Vioxx
that
> she said her husband had used just before his death from a
> heart attack.
>
> But Merck's lawyers said the packages in question left the
> Merck factory six months after Rogers died. Rogers' lawyers
> shot back that
it
> was an unintentional error and then filed a motion seeking
> sanctions against Merck for violating a protective order and
> disclosing
personal
> and confidential information about Mrs. Rogers and her
> husband.
>
> In addition, the motion cites Merck being in violation of
> the provisions of the federal health privacy act, HIPAA,
> by disclosing personal medical information pertaining to
> Brad Rogers.
>
> Vioxx was withdrawn from the market last September after
> studies suggested it doubled the risk of heart attack and
> stroke in those who took the drug for more than 18 months.
>
> Merck has set aside $675 million to fight the roughly
> 2,500 cases
that
> have been filed. Its defense strategy, as illustrated in the
> Rogers case, is to question whether Vioxx was actually to
> blame for the
deaths
> and illnesses claimed by the plaintiffs, or whether other
> factors, including lifestyle, heredity, diet and smoking may
> have been significant.
>
> Rogers collapsed and died shortly after finishing a night
> shift. He
was
> overweight and had high blood pressure and high
> cholesterol, which is why his lawyers say he shouldn't have
> been taking Vioxx.
>
> Attorney Jere Beasley, representing Mrs. Rogers, asked
> that since
Merck
> allegedly violated the protective order by releasing
> information
about
> the Rogers couple to the press, the court vacate its
> protective order as it relates to documents produced by
> Merck. He is asking the court
to
> allow for public disclosure by plaintiffs' attorneys of all
> Merck documents.
>
> "Releasing Merck's documents would serve the public
> interest by exposing its wrongful conduct over the years,"
> Beasley said.
"Clinical
> tests have proven Vioxx is and was a dangerous drug. It has
> killed literally thousands of unsuspecting victims who
> trusted the company
and
> who had no idea that Vioxx caused heart attacks and
> strokes."
>
> During the Advantage trial in 2000, eight people
> taking Vioxx
suffered
> heart attacks or sudden cardiac death, compared with just
> one taking naproxen, according to data released by the FDA
> earlier this year, Beasley said.
>
> The difference was statistically significant, but
> Merck never
disclosed
> the data that way. In fact, according to previously
> undisclosed Merck records, including email messages between
> top Merck officials, it appears that Merck went out of its
> way to hide these facts, Beasley said in a news release.
>
> In 2000, amid rising concerns that its painkiller Vioxx
> posed heart risks, Merck overruled one of its own scientists
> after he suggested that a patient in a clinical trial had
> probably died of a heart
attack,
> he said.
>
> "Merck intentionally misled the public and the medical
> community by withholding information relating to known
> dangers associated with taking Vioxx," Beasley says.
>
> Merck argues that Mrs. Rogers' credibility has been damaged
> and moved for a dismissal of the case.
>
> --
>
> TC

[Robert]

MONTREAL, QC -- November 15, 1999 -- Vioxx T(rofecoxib), a
Canadian-discovered breakthrough in arthritis will be
available today in most pharmacies across Canada. Receiving
fast-track review and recent approval by Health Canada, Vioxx
is indicated for the treatment for the relief of the signs and
symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) in adults. Vioxx is also
approved for acute adult pain relief and the treatment of
menstrual pain.

People living with arthritis are challenged daily with simple
tasks such as opening a prescription bottle or tackling a
blister pack containing their medication. Vioxx is the only
arthritis prescription medication with a specially designed,
user friendly cap feature, which makes it easier for people
with arthritis to open their prescription bottle.

"I am delighted that this Canadian discovery is now available
for Canadians with arthritis'', said Dr. François Bertrand,
Director, Clinical Research at Merck Frosst Canada & Co. "The
specially-designed bottle cap is a meaningful gesture that
will simplify a regular daily task for people with
arthritis.''

Vioxx is priced at $1.25 per day, excluding professional
dispensing fees, for either the 12.5 mg or 25 mg dose, which
is similar to the other product in its class. The recommended
therapeutic dose of Vioxx for OA is 12.5 mg once daily to a
maximum of 25 mg once daily.

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/146fee.htm

[Tc]

So your point is what? That Pharma has co-opted the drug
approval process in Canada too? Big surprise. Duh!

TC

Robert wrote:
> MONTREAL, QC -- November 15, 1999 -- Vioxx T(rofecoxib), a
> Canadian-discovered breakthrough in arthritis will be
> available today
in
> most pharmacies across Canada. Receiving fast-track review
> and recent approval by Health Canada, Vioxx is indicated for
> the treatment for
the
> relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA)
> in adults.
Vioxx is
> also approved for acute adult pain relief and the
> treatment of
menstrual
> pain.
>
>
> People living with arthritis are challenged daily with
> simple tasks
such as
> opening a prescription bottle or tackling a blister pack
> containing
their
> medication. Vioxx is the only arthritis prescription
> medication with
a
> specially designed, user friendly cap feature, which makes
> it easier
for
> people with arthritis to open their prescription bottle.
>
>
> "I am delighted that this Canadian discovery is now
> available for
Canadians
> with arthritis'', said Dr. Fran=E7ois Bertrand, Director,
> Clinical
Research at
> Merck Frosst Canada & Co. "The specially-designed bottle
> cap is a
meaningful
> gesture that will simplify a regular daily task for
> people with
arthritis.''
>
>
> Vioxx is priced at $1.25 per day, excluding professional
> dispensing
fees,
> for either the 12.5 mg or 25 mg dose, which is similar to
> the other
product
> in its class. The recommended therapeutic dose of Vioxx
> for OA is
12.5 mg
> once daily to a maximum of 25 mg once daily.
>=20
> http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/146fee.htm

[Tc]

You have got to be kidding!

So you are saying that the Pharma strategy to charge US
citizens extraordinarily high mark-ups on prescription drugs
is really a system designed by the US regulatory agencies and
Pharma to keep drugs out of the poorer peoples hands in order
to protect them from the harmful effects of the toxic drugs?
And the cheaper drugs in Canada are there because the
Canadian govt has sold out and they willingly allow the drug
manufacturers to poison the populace and they conspire to
make them cheap enough so that everyone can afford the
presciption poisons?.

Are you on drugs?

TC

Robert wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11146095-
> 92.997823.121940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> So your point is what? That Pharma has co-opted the drug
> approval process in Canada too? Big surprise. Duh!
>
> Not only that my friend but drugs are much more, more, more
> cheaper.
Their
> system approves cheap toxic drugs compared to the US.
> Look at the
rediculous
> price they were selling the drug. Your system is unsafe and
> intentionally exposes the patients to
dangerous
> new drugs. In the US the newer drugs are much more expensive
> and so fewer people
are
> exposed to them. The thirty million people without insurance
> can not afford them as a
result
> they must use cheaper older drugs with known safety track
> records.

[Tc]

Robert wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11146302-
> 03.300659.164000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > You have got to be kidding!
> >
> > So you are saying that the Pharma strategy to charge US
> > citizens extraordinarily high mark-ups on prescription
> > drugs is really a
system
> > designed by the US regulatory agencies and Pharma to keep
> > drugs out
of
> > the poorer peoples hands in order to protect them from the
> > harmful
>
> No. The pharm drugs want as much money for each drug
> they can get
away with.

No shit sherlock.

> In the US they charge way more and as a result fewer
> people are on
them.
> Some insurance companies do not pay for newer drugs when
> older ones
are
> available. The US doesn't regulate price like in Canada.

They don't regulate price. They let the market do its thing.

> If you don't have the money to pay then naturally the poor
> don't buy
them.

News flash!

> The pharm companies don't care about the poor. It is a
> business and
they
> higher the price is fine for them. Not so in Canada.
>

They don't care about the sick either, or the healthy.

> > effects of the toxic drugs? And the cheaper drugs in
> > Canada are
there
> > because the Canadian govt has sold out and they willingly
> > allow the drug manufacturers to poison the populace and
> > they conspire to make them cheap enough so that everyone
> > can afford the presciption
poisons?.
>
> Not only do they allow a cheaper price to poison the
> canadian people
they
> allow americans to buy them as well. Canadians don't
> care about
safety only
> the money they can get from drug sales.

You are one strange bugger.

> Money is the key. The lawsuits are about money. The sales
> are about
money.
> Where you buy the drug is about money. Who sales the drugs
> cheaper as
in
> mass buying that canada does is about money.
> >
> > Are you on drugs?
>
> You are a candian so you will be the first to know if I
> need to buy
any off
> of you. If anything happens to me I will sue Canada and
> the pharm
companies
> for millions of dollars and then say it is about health and
> not money
in
> your government not protecting me. Why don't you warn me now
> about any new canadian drugs under
development
> that your country wants to make money on? I think they
> should charge a thousand dollars a pill but not in
Canada.
>

I'll send you a quarter so you can buy a clue. Idiot.

TC

[Robert]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114609592.997823.121940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

So your point is what? That Pharma has co-opted the drug
approval process in Canada too? Big surprise. Duh!

Not only that my friend but drugs are much more, more, more
cheaper. Their system approves cheap toxic drugs compared to
the US. Look at the rediculous price they were selling the
drug. Your system is unsafe and intentionally exposes the
patients to dangerous new drugs. In the US the newer drugs are
much more expensive and so fewer people are exposed to them.
The thirty million people without insurance can not afford
them as a result they must use cheaper older drugs with known
safety track records.

TC

Robert wrote:
> MONTREAL, QC -- November 15, 1999 -- Vioxx T(rofecoxib), a
> Canadian-discovered breakthrough in arthritis will be
> available today
in
> most pharmacies across Canada. Receiving fast-track review
> and recent approval by Health Canada, Vioxx is indicated for
> the treatment for
the
> relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA)
> in adults.
Vioxx is
> also approved for acute adult pain relief and the
> treatment of
menstrual
> pain.
>
>
> People living with arthritis are challenged daily with
> simple tasks
such as
> opening a prescription bottle or tackling a blister pack
> containing
their
> medication. Vioxx is the only arthritis prescription
> medication with
a
> specially designed, user friendly cap feature, which makes
> it easier
for
> people with arthritis to open their prescription bottle.
>
>
> "I am delighted that this Canadian discovery is now
> available for
Canadians
> with arthritis'', said Dr. François Bertrand, Director,
> Clinical
Research at
> Merck Frosst Canada & Co. "The specially-designed bottle
> cap is a
meaningful
> gesture that will simplify a regular daily task for
> people with
arthritis.''
>
>
> Vioxx is priced at $1.25 per day, excluding professional
> dispensing
fees,
> for either the 12.5 mg or 25 mg dose, which is similar to
> the other
product
> in its class. The recommended therapeutic dose of Vioxx
> for OA is
12.5 mg
> once daily to a maximum of 25 mg once daily.
>
> http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/146fee.htm

[Stacey Ben]

TC wrote:
> Are you on drugs?

Evil Canadian drugs i suspect....

[Robert]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114630203.300659.164000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> You have got to be kidding!
>
> So you are saying that the Pharma strategy to charge US
> citizens extraordinarily high mark-ups on prescription drugs
> is really a system designed by the US regulatory agencies
> and Pharma to keep drugs out of the poorer peoples hands in
> order to protect them from the harmful

No. The pharm drugs want as much money for each drug they can
get away with. In the US they charge way more and as a result
fewer people are on them. Some insurance companies do not pay
for newer drugs when older ones are available. The US doesn't
regulate price like in Canada. If you don't have the money to
pay then naturally the poor don't buy them. The pharm
companies don't care about the poor. It is a business and they
higher the price is fine for them. Not so in Canada.

> effects of the toxic drugs? And the cheaper drugs in Canada
> are there because the Canadian govt has sold out and they
> willingly allow the drug manufacturers to poison the
> populace and they conspire to make them cheap enough so that
> everyone can afford the presciption poisons?.

Not only do they allow a cheaper price to poison the canadian
people they allow americans to buy them as well. Canadians
don't care about safety only the money they can get from drug
sales. Money is the key. The lawsuits are about money. The
sales are about money. Where you buy the drug is about money.
Who sales the drugs cheaper as in mass buying that canada does
is about money.
>
> Are you on drugs?

You are a candian so you will be the first to know if I need
to buy any off of you. If anything happens to me I will sue
Canada and the pharm companies for millions of dollars and
then say it is about health and not money in your government
not protecting me. Why don't you warn me now about any new
canadian drugs under development that your country wants to
make money on? I think they should charge a thousand dollars a
pill but not in Canada.

>
> TC
>
> Robert wrote:
> > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:111460-
> > 9592.997823.121940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > So your point is what? That Pharma has co-opted the drug
> > approval process in Canada too? Big surprise. Duh!
> >
> > Not only that my friend but drugs are much more, more,
> > more cheaper.
> Their
> > system approves cheap toxic drugs compared to the US. Look
> > at the
> rediculous
> > price they were selling the drug. Your system is unsafe
> > and intentionally exposes the patients to
> dangerous
> > new drugs. In the US the newer drugs are much more
> > expensive and so fewer people
> are
> > exposed to them. The thirty million people without
> > insurance can not afford them as a
> result
> > they must use cheaper older drugs with known safety track
> > records.
> >

[Robert]

"Stacey Bender" <sb124@aol.com> wrote in message
news:116vqiuobt7333b@news.supernews.com...
> TC wrote:
> > Are you on drugs?
>
> Evil Canadian drugs i suspect...

I never said they were evil. It is those people posting about
drug safety with newer drugs, guying Canadian make cheaper
drugs, and then claiming innocence in trying to get millions
of dollars in lawsuits. I found a finger in my soup or I mean
a finger in my capsule and died. They want to have it both
ways. They want to have cheap drugs for everyone and then
complain that safety studies are flawed. The biggest flaw is
that it has never been tried in mass markets with millions of
people taking the drug. Canada got bit on the ass with that
one and they should be able to sue the Canadian government but
they can't.

[Bronchobil]

Actually, since there are no generics in Canada, the long term
price of a drug tends to even out in the US.

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114636994.237678.325260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robert wrote:
>> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1114630-
>> 203.300659.164000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > You have got to be kidding!
>> >
>> > So you are saying that the Pharma strategy to charge US
>> > citizens extraordinarily high mark-ups on prescription
>> > drugs is really a
> system
>> > designed by the US regulatory agencies and Pharma to keep
>> > drugs out
> of
>> > the poorer peoples hands in order to protect them from
>> > the harmful
>>
>> No. The pharm drugs want as much money for each drug they
>> can get
> away with.
>
> No shit sherlock.
>
>> In the US they charge way more and as a result fewer
>> people are on
> them.
>> Some insurance companies do not pay for newer drugs when
>> older ones
> are
>> available. The US doesn't regulate price like in Canada.
>
> They don't regulate price. They let the market do its thing.
>
>> If you don't have the money to pay then naturally the poor
>> don't buy
> them.
>
> News flash!
>
>> The pharm companies don't care about the poor. It is a
>> business and
> they
>> higher the price is fine for them. Not so in Canada.
>>
>
> They don't care about the sick either, or the healthy.
>
>> > effects of the toxic drugs? And the cheaper drugs in
>> > Canada are
> there
>> > because the Canadian govt has sold out and they willingly
>> > allow the drug manufacturers to poison the populace and
>> > they conspire to make them cheap enough so that everyone
>> > can afford the presciption
> poisons?.
>>
>> Not only do they allow a cheaper price to poison the
>> canadian people
> they
>> allow americans to buy them as well. Canadians don't
>> care about
> safety only
>> the money they can get from drug sales.
>
> You are one strange bugger.
>
>> Money is the key. The lawsuits are about money. The sales
>> are about
> money.
>> Where you buy the drug is about money. Who sales the drugs
>> cheaper as
> in
>> mass buying that canada does is about money.
>> >
>> > Are you on drugs?
>>
>> You are a candian so you will be the first to know if I
>> need to buy
> any off
>> of you. If anything happens to me I will sue Canada and
>> the pharm
> companies
>> for millions of dollars and then say it is about health and
>> not money
> in
>> your government not protecting me. Why don't you warn me
>> now about any new canadian drugs under
> development
>> that your country wants to make money on? I think they
>> should charge a thousand dollars a pill but not in
> Canada.
>>
>
> I'll send you a quarter so you can buy a clue. Idiot.
>
> TC

[Tc]

No generics in Canada???

Since when?

If you are so stupid to assume and to believe that there are
no generics in Canada, why would you presume to actually enter
a debate in this ng?

You take stupid to a new level.

TC

BronchoBilly wrote:
> Actually, since there are no generics in Canada, the long
> term price
of a
> drug tends to even out in the US.
>
>
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11146369-
> 94.237678.325260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Robert wrote:
> >> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11146-
> >> 30203.300659.164000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > You have got to be kidding!
> >> >
> >> > So you are saying that the Pharma strategy to charge US
> >> > citizens extraordinarily high mark-ups on prescription
> >> > drugs is really a
> > system
> >> > designed by the US regulatory agencies and Pharma to
> >> > keep drugs
out
> > of
> >> > the poorer peoples hands in order to protect them from
> >> > the
harmful
> >>
> >> No. The pharm drugs want as much money for each drug they
> >> can get
> > away with.
> >
> > No shit sherlock.
> >
> >> In the US they charge way more and as a result fewer
> >> people are on
> > them.
> >> Some insurance companies do not pay for newer drugs when
> >> older
ones
> > are
> >> available. The US doesn't regulate price like in Canada.
> >
> > They don't regulate price. They let the market do its
> > thing.
> >
> >> If you don't have the money to pay then naturally the
> >> poor don't
buy
> > them.
> >
> > News flash!
> >
> >> The pharm companies don't care about the poor. It is a
> >> business
and
> > they
> >> higher the price is fine for them. Not so in Canada.
> >>
> >
> > They don't care about the sick either, or the healthy.
> >
> >> > effects of the toxic drugs? And the cheaper drugs in
> >> > Canada are
> > there
> >> > because the Canadian govt has sold out and they
> >> > willingly allow
the
> >> > drug manufacturers to poison the populace and they
> >> > conspire to
make
> >> > them cheap enough so that everyone can afford the
> >> > presciption
> > poisons?.
> >>
> >> Not only do they allow a cheaper price to poison the
> >> canadian
people
> > they
> >> allow americans to buy them as well. Canadians don't care
> >> about
> > safety only
> >> the money they can get from drug sales.
> >
> > You are one strange bugger.
> >
> >> Money is the key. The lawsuits are about money. The
> >> sales are
about
> > money.
> >> Where you buy the drug is about money. Who sales the
> >> drugs cheaper
as
> > in
> >> mass buying that canada does is about money.
> >> >
> >> > Are you on drugs?
> >>
> >> You are a candian so you will be the first to know if I
> >> need to
buy
> > any off
> >> of you. If anything happens to me I will sue Canada and
> >> the pharm
> > companies
> >> for millions of dollars and then say it is about health
> >> and not
money
> > in
> >> your government not protecting me. Why don't you warn me
> >> now about any new canadian drugs under
> > development
> >> that your country wants to make money on? I think they
> >> should charge a thousand dollars a pill but not in
> > Canada.
> >>
> >
> > I'll send you a quarter so you can buy a clue. Idiot.
> >
> > TC